The US Government Funding: How cutting NASA, Navy, Dept. Of Defence and others still won't solve the

[Thugaim]

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;35392181]Why would you cut Education when you can take that amount and barely dent the military

I'm not attacking the soldiers right now, look at the programs and other wastes of money, the air conditioning in the fobs in Afghanistan costs 20 BILLION, that's more than NASAS budget. Or how about the war in general, how about the money sent to isreal for weapons, compare the weapon supply to actual foreign aid for African and other poor countries and you will see how bloated the budget is.[/QUOTE]

Education is better done by the free market.

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=Thugaim;35406174]Education is better done by the free market.[/QUOTE]

Depends on what you mean by the free market. If standards aren't kept, then schools can get away teaching students less and breeding an ignorant population. If you are poor, you might be forced to buy into a sub par school system that doesn't teach as much as a rich school. We shouldn't have that at all. Students who graduate from High School should all know math, english, and science up to a certain degree.

[fox '09]

[QUOTE=Thugaim;35406174]Education is better done by the free market.[/QUOTE]

How so? Alternatives are fine, but I think the state should provide education. I hope you're not one of those FREE MARKET SOLVES ALL PROBLEMS people. There are some things, like NASA, that fund things that NO investor will EVER invest in because of the massive risks. Going to mars has extreme known risks, and many unknown risks for sure. The idea that private industry will somehow fund it is wishful thinking at best.

Healthcare is different. People should be given a right to live, and it should not be earned. We can do it, and there's no good reason why not to. All the other major industrialized countries do it just fine.

I'd like to have a discussion about what goverment should and shouldn't do , but it's wasteful for people to argue with strict libertarians. As I said, I want to know where you're coming from. Why shouldn't education be provided as a service by the state? Sure, it knocks out competition, and you can argue about that, but sometimes it's worth excluding corporations.

[[Seed Eater]]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35406173]The problem is that in such a short timespan we don't really know what sort of long term effects the New Deal had. Some aspects of it seemed to work, but we don't know if those effects were temporary, or if they would end up hurting us long term. Remember that we were in a depression right up until WW2. Also note that even if the New Deal helped, the help it gave wasn't that great, compared to WW2. So it's hard to say whether New Deal policies will necessarily be that effective.

Some economists definitely agree with New Deal policies, and think that they would be great. Others say that they aren't that effective and may not really help us as much as we may like to think.

What I think is clear, however, and I hope you agree with me on this, is that we need to pursue one type of policy. The problem with politics is that we have a conservative administration/legislature, that pursues a certain style of economic policy. Then 4-8 years later we have a liberal administration/legislature that changes that policy to something else. We can't keep flopping around because without a set goal and route to take, we will never get where we are going.[/QUOTE]

I would agree, but it's not exactly so easy as to say that "We just need to agree on the same issue and stick with it" when both sides are different. Should we use one type of policy? Yes. Are we going to? Nah. And I can understand why, since I think that the alternative to my point of view will be devastatingly dangerous.

[Thugaim]

[QUOTE=fox '09;35407605]How so? Alternatives are fine, but I think the state should provide education. I hope you're not one of those FREE MARKET SOLVES ALL PROBLEMS people. There are some things, like NASA, that fund things that NO investor will EVER invest in because of the massive risks. Going to mars has extreme known risks, and many unknown risks for sure. The idea that private industry will somehow fund it is wishful thinking at best.

Healthcare is different. People should be given a right to live, and it should not be earned. We can do it, and there's no good reason why not to. All the other major industrialized countries do it just fine.

I'd like to have a discussion about what goverment should and shouldn't do , but it's wasteful for people to argue with strict libertarians. As I said, I want to know where you're coming from. Why shouldn't education be provided as a service by the state? Sure, it knocks out competition, and you can argue about that, but sometimes it's worth excluding corporations.[/QUOTE]

Education is not a risk, businesses know what they want to educate the next generation because they have experience with it first hand and can simulate a better learning environment.

Just look at CCNA, Microsoft Certifications etc, it's stuff that is expected from you to know when working at those firms and the public school don't come even close to that type of standard.